This morning, just two days after Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson caused a national controversy when he suggested that states enslave undocumented immigrants who refuse to leave, asking, “What’s wrong with slavery?,” Sen. Ted Cruz joined Mickelson’s program to discuss his upcoming rally in Iowa which will bring together various supposed victims of anti-Christian persecution.

Mickelson asked Cruz to discuss his fight against the “brazenness of the atheist Taliban” and the fact that “anytime they furrow their brow at anyone [people] fold up and go home and give them what they want.”

Cruz, who has previously railed against what he called a gay “jihad" against Christians, apparently liked Mickelson’s phrase, and took it up while describing his work fighting against church-state separation efforts.

“There is an assault on faith and an assault on religious liberty that we see across this country and it has never been as bad as it is right now,” he said, claiming that “radical atheists and liberals” are “driving any acknowledgment of God out of the public square.”

“There are these zealots — as you put it, the atheist Taliban — that seek to tear down any acknowledgment of God in the public square, and it’s contrary to our Constitution, it’s contrary to who we are as a people.”

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

haha I was just about to post this. Good thing i searched first. What a good audio clip on that site. What a nut job! separation of church and state is part of our government. get over it or try moving to an islamic state. if you put a cross on governmental property with nothing else, that religious preference, which shouldn't be tolerated. I'm surprised other religions are not offended. I would bet other religions actually are offended and voicing their concern, but that ted cruz just chose to pick on atheists.

"Atheist Taliban"...wow that's one I haven't heard; comparing atheists to the Taliban who frickin kill people. Christopher Hitchens said something like, you can have your toys, but I will not play with the toys.

and to think we're representing some atheist soldiers with a cross. How disgusting. They're some of the most honorable people and deserve to be represented properly n accurately as a whole. Good post

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein

Atheist Taliban - with the Taliban being hyper religious...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad and stupid.

Doing things like that is harmful though - while probably the majority of people will note to themselves that atheists are not Taliban, the name association is created, and yet another negative to go with the word atheist is born.

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

They don't think the establishment clause is about protecting our right to be atheists, but about protecting one sect of religion from another, and stopping the government from having an official religion, and that's it. A good example comes from Scalia and Rehnquist:

From his earliest days on the Supreme Court, [Scalia] opposed the strict “wall of separation” philosophy the Supreme Court had been following in its decisions, and instead adopted a view similar to that set forth by Justice William Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). In that influential dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist argued that the Establishment Clause was “designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects.” Rehnquist concluded that there was no requirement that government be neutral between “religion and irreligion nor did [the Establishment Clause] prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion.” Justice Scalia has generally agreed with this approach, and has characterized the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence as “neither a settled, nor a consistent, nor even a rational line of authority that you could rely on even if you wanted to.”

"At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism." - Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52 (1985)

Your far right Christian crowd are driving the US into the ground. It'll be the most foreseeable and stupid demise of a civilisation in recorded history. In 20-30 years time when all the schmucks have succeeded and the kids who never learned evolution or critical thinking are ready to take over the important jobs and run the country... man, it'll be a fun time to be watching from the outside, that's all I know.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

Don't despair, MD -- there's a vigorous fight going on, and I believe the good are actually winning. Witness the decision about gay marriage, the changing demographics of faith, and the refusal of minorities of any stripe to sit still and behave.

Although, I do worry about the consumerism which is eroding base values I'd like to see better upheld.

(24-08-2015 04:05 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: Rehnquist concluded that there was no requirement that government be neutral between “religion and irreligion nor did [the Establishment Clause]

Because he doesn't believe Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the rest?

Quote:prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion.”

What aid do religions require from the federal government?
And how's that going to work?
Does every little hick church and sect get the same amount of aid? Or is it proportional to the size of the congregation? Who is going to audit the membership lists? A new government agency?

You haven't thought this one through, Billy. You are blinded by religious ideology and should just fiucking step down from the bench.

Quote:Justice Scalia has generally agreed with this approach, and has characterized the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence as “neither a settled, nor a consistent, nor even a rational line of authority that you could rely on even if you wanted to.”[/i]

Scalia is even worse.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.